4.  The first applicant was born in 1949. The second applicant was born in 1946. The third applicant was born in 1951. The fourth applicant was born in 1961. All the applicants reside in Oleksandriya, the Kirovograd region, and are Ukrainian nationals.
5.  In 1994 the applicants became minority shareholders of the privatised JSC “Oleksandriysky Myasokombinat” (the “OM”), formerly State-owned enterprise, by investing property bonds issued by the State in the statutory fund of the OM. In total, the applicants had 0.25% of the OM's shares. In particular, the first applicant owned 109 shares (0.15 % of the OM's shares), the second and third applicant each owned 39 shares (0.05% of the OM's shares). The fourth applicant also made some similar minor investments into the OM. He did not specify a number of shares he owned.
6.  On 17 June 1994 the OM was officially registered as a legal entity with the Kirovograd Regional Council.
7.  On 21 November 1997 the Kirovograd Regional Directorate of the JSC “Ukrsocbank” (the “USB”) signed a UAH 1,000,000[1] loan agreement with the OM, with its property used as security.
8.  On 11 December 1997 the ad hoc arbitration court ordered the OM to pay USB a sum of UAH 1,018,493.15[2] in compensation for loan arrears.
9.  On 12 December 1997 the USB sold the property of the OM to “Eldorado” (a private company).
10.  In April 1998 five of the OM's shareholders (not including the applicants) T., P., K., M. and S. lodged a complaint with the Prosecutor of the Kirovograd Region seeking annulment of the transactions between the USB, the OM and “Eldorado”, the company that allegedly infringed their property rights. They also petitioned the Prosecutor to act as their legal representative and institute the civil proceedings against the aforementioned companies on their behalf.
11.  On 2 July 1998 the Kirovograd Regional Arbitration Court rejected the protest lodged by the Prosecutor of the Kirovograd Region against the judgment of the ad hoc arbitration court of 11 December 1997 as being unsubstantiated.
12.  In June 1998 the Prosecutor of the Kirovograd Region instituted proceedings on behalf of the above-mentioned shareholders T., P., K., M. and S. against the USB and “Eldorado” seeking annulment of the aforementioned property transactions. (Contract on sale of USB's property was appealed against by the State Tax Inspectorate of Kirovograd and this appeal was subsequently joined by the court to the claims lodged by the Prosecutor of Kirovograd Region against OM).
13.  On 3 July 1998 the Oleksandriya City Court (the “Oleksandriya Court”) allowed the Prosecutor's claims and annulled the secured loan agreement of 21 November 1997 concluded by the OM and the agreement of 12 December 1997 between the USB and “Eldorado”. It also ordered the restitution of property to the OM. In particular, the court found that the real value of the OM's secured property was UAH 12,478,649[3] and did not correspond to the sums paid for it by “Eldorado”. This judgment was not appealed in cassation and became final and binding.
14.  On 21 September 1998 the President of the Kirovograd Regional Court suspended the execution proceedings of the judgment of 3 July 1998 due to the initiation of supervisory review proceedings in the case upon his protest.
15.  On 7 October 1998 the Presidium of the Kirovograd Regional Court quashed the judgment of the Oleksandriya Court of 3 July 1998 following a protest of the President of the Kirovograd Regional Court. The Presidium remitted the case for a fresh consideration. In particular, the Presidium found that the first-instance court incorrectly assessed circumstances of the case and misapplied the procedural and substantive law. It instructed the lower court to assess evidence and the case-file in full and to adopt a lawful and substantiated judgment, based on the Presidium's considerations. A member of the Presidium of the Kirovograd Regional Court expressed a dissenting opinion in the case, disagreeing with the quashing of the judgment of 3 July 1998 that had become final and binding.
16.  On 27 October 1998 the Deputy President of the Higher Arbitration Court rejected the protest of the President of the Kirovograd Regional Arbitration Court by which he sought to institute supervisory review proceedings on the resolution of the Kirovograd Regional Arbitration Court of 2 July 1998.
17.  On 30 November 1998 the Deputy President of the Supreme Court refused to initiate a supervisory review of the resolution of the Presidium of the Kirovograd Regional Court of 7 October 1998.
18.  On 29 March 1999 the President of the Kirovograd Regional Court, acting within the limits of his jurisdiction under Article 133 of the Code of Civil Procedure, decided that the case-jurisdiction should be changed to the Leninsky District Court of Kirovograd. On 31 March 1999 the case file was sent to that court for further consideration on the merits.
19.  On 23 May 1999 the Oleksandriya Prosecution Service terminated the criminal investigation into financial fraud committed by the OM's management due to the absence of any corpus juris in their actions.
20.  On 7 June 1999 the Leninsky District Court of Kirovograd (the “Leninsky Court”) rejected the claims of the Prosecutor of the Kirovograd Region, who acted on behalf of the OM shareholders T., P., K., M. and S. (see paragraph 13 above), as being unsubstantiated. This judgment was not appealed in cassation and became final.
21.  On 22 December 1999 the Presidium of the Kirovograd Regional Court allowed the protest of the Deputy Prosecutor of the Kirovograd Region and quashed the judgment of 7 June 1999, remitting the case to the same court for a fresh consideration. In particular, the Presidium of the Kirovograd Regional Court stated that, as the Leninsky Court had failed to comply with the instructions laid down in its previous resolution (see paragraph 15 above), the court had breached the norms of procedural and substantive law. It also decided that the case-jurisdiction be changed to the Kirovsky District Court of Kirovograd (the “Kirovsky Court”).
22.  On 13 June 2000 the Kirovsky Court, acting in accordance with Article 221 § 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, adjourned the proceedings in the case due to other proceedings pending before the Oleksandriya Court which could affect the outcome of the case. These proceedings concerned the complaint of Ms G.V.R., the director of “Eldorado”, lodged against the OM and that concerned similar factual circumstances and legal issues.
23.  On 21 August 2000 the Deputy President of the Regional Court informed the President of the Kirovsky Court of the need to expedite the case-proceedings.
24.  On 24 January 2001 the Oleksandriya Prosecution Service refused the applicant's request to re-open the criminal investigation.
25.  On 2 March 2001 the President of the Kirovograd Regional Court refused to initiate supervisory review proceedings upon the applicants' complaints lodged with the President of the Supreme Court. In particular, he stated that there was no final decision taken in the case and therefore, under Article 327 of the Code of Civil Procedure, there was nothing to review in the course of supervisory review proceedings.
26.  On 4 April 2001 the Judge K. of the Oleksandriya Court informed the applicants that the case had not been considered on the merits on account of the court's excessive workload (in this respect judge K. mentioned that to have examined 140 civil and 17 criminal cases within the last three months), reference was also made to the fact that the Ms G.V.R., had lodged two motions on 3 March and 15 May 2001 seeking to adjourn the hearing of the case as it was being considered by other authorities.
27.  On 13 June 2001 the Oleksandriya Court terminated the proceedings concerning the claims of Ms G.V.R. as she had failed to appear before the court. It also found that she had been duly notified about the date and place of the hearing.
28.  On 7 September 2001 Ms G.V.R. lodged fresh complaints with the Oleksandriya Court against the OM seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage to her property.
29.  On 11 September 2001 the Kirovograd Regional Prosecution Service informed the applicants that they could bring the proceedings in their case in the Kirovsky Court. They were further informed that the case of Ms G.V.R. was terminated on 13 June 2001 (see paragraph 27 above) and that there were now no obstacles to considering their case on the merits in the Kirovsky Court.
30.  On 12 November 2001 the acting President of the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal (the “Court of Appeal”) requested the President of the Kirovsky Court to ensure the examination of the applicants' case within a reasonable time. He also mentioned that the competent judge of the court would have to provide plausible explanations before the judicial disciplinary board as to the applicants' claims that the examination of the Prosecutor's claims lodged against OM had taken the Kirovsky Court an unreasonable time.
31.  On 5 December 2001 the President of the Kirovsky Court informed the applicants that the proceedings of which they complained (see paragraph 12 above) were suspended on 13 June 2000 in view of the outcome of the proceedings instituted by Ms G.V.R., which were pending before Oleksandriya Court.
32.  On 26 December 2001 the first applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Kirovsky Court against “Eldorado-OM Ltd.” seeking to annul the above mentioned property transaction.
33.  On 7 February 2002 the Prosecutor of the Kirovograd Region suggested to the court that the first applicant's claims and those of the Prosecution, instituted on 17 June 1998, acting in the interests of the State and the shareholders T., P., K., M. and S., be joined.
34.  On 15 April 2002 the Prosecutor of the Kirovograd Region informed the applicants that he had lodged a motion with the Kirovsky Court requesting that the proceedings suspended on 13 June 2000 be resumed (see paragraph 22 above).
35.  On 16 April 2002 the President of the Court of Appeal decided to change the case-jurisdiction from the Kirovsky Court to the Leninsky Court.
36.  On 17 April 2002 the case-file was remitted to the Leninsky Court.
37.  On 29 April 2002 the Oleksandriya Court informed the Leninsky Court of the judgment of 13 June 2001 rejecting the claims of Ms G.V.R. and others.
38.  On 30 April 2002 the Leninsky Court joined the suits brought by the first applicant and the public prosecutor against “Eldorado” and the USB. On the same day, the judge resumed the proceedings.
39.  On 14 May 2002 the court adjourned the proceedings due to the parties' failure to appear.
40.  On 3 June 2002 the President of the Kirovsky Court informed the first applicant that the proceedings in the case were still adjourned. He also informed her that the case file had been remitted to the Leninsky Court for consultation due to the pending proceedings in another case.
41.  On 25 July 2002 the proceedings were adjourned due to the parties' failure to appear.
42.  On 8 and 29 November and on 24 December 2002 the court adjourned the hearings due to the parties' failure to appear.
43.  On 22 January 2003 the Leninsky Court terminated the proceedings in the part supported by the public prosecutor (as the shareholders T., P. and M. renounced their claims and the two remaining shareholders were apparently disinterested in the proceedings). The proceedings instituted by the first applicant were remained pending.
44.  On 24 February 2003 the court adjourned the proceedings to 17 March 2003 due to the defendant's representative's failure to appear before it.
45.  On 17 March 2003 the Leninsky Court requested the President of the Court of Appeal to change the jurisdiction of the case to the Oleksandriya Court as the parties had failed to appear before the court for the hearing again.
46.  On 19 March 2003 the Court of Appeal remitted the first applicant's claims lodged against “Eldorado” and the OM to the Oleksandriya Court for consideration on the merits.
47.  On 7 April 2003 the Court of Appeal informed the first applicant that the case-jurisdiction had been transferred to the Oleksandriya Court (in accordance with Article 133 of the Code of Civil Procedure). On the same date a judge of the Oleksandriya Court invited the parties for a meeting to decide on the proceedings in the case.
48.  On 17 April 2003 the judge of the Oleksandriya Court decided that the hearing be held on 27 May 2003.
49.  On 27 May and 10 June 2003 the hearings were adjourned due to the defendant's failure to appear.
50.  On 10 July 2003 the Kirovograd Commercial Court declared the OM bankrupt.
51.  On 19 August and 1 September 2003 the defendant failed to appear again.
52.  On 17 September 2003 the Oleksandriya Court rejected the first applicant's claims due to her failure to comply with the statute of limitation, finding that she had lodged her complaint more than three years after the transaction took place.
53.  On 14 November 2003 the Oleksandriya Court ordered the first applicant to pay the court fee.
54.  On 8 December 2003 the judge of the Oleksandriya Court refused leave to appeal to the first applicant as she failed to pay the court fee for its introduction.
55.  On 5 February and 22 April 2004 the Court of Appeal quashed the decisions of the Oleksandriya Court of 14 November and 8 December 2003, respectively, and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.
56.  26 February 2004 the Oleksandriya Court rejected the first applicant's appeal as she failed to comply with formalities for its introduction, namely to provide a copy of the appeal.
57.  On 4 March 2004 the applicant filed a copy of her appeal.
58.  On 1 April 2004 the Court of Appeal ruled that it had jurisdiction to examine the appeal.
59.  On 22 April 2004 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 17 September 2003 and remitted the case for a fresh examination to the Oleksandriya Court in a different composition.
60.  On 21 May 2004 the first applicant amended her claims.
61.  On 2 July 2004 the Oleksandriya Court terminated the proceedings in the case. In particular, the court stated that the first applicant was not a party to the above mentioned property transaction.
62.  On 10 March 2005 the Court of Appeal quashed this ruling and remitted the case for an examination of its merits.
63.  On 22 May 2006 the Oleksandriya Court rejected the first applicant's claims lodged against “Eldorado” and the USB as to the unlawfulness of the security and sales agreement of the property belonging to OM.
64.  On 7 June 2006 the Kremenchuk District Prosecutor informed the first applicant that the criminal investigation into allegations of financial fraud during the sale of OM's property was still pending.
65.  On 9 June 2006 the first applicant appealed against the judgment of 22 May 2006.
66.  On 17 July 2006 Mr G., a judge of the Court of Appeal, refused leave to appeal to the first applicant as the first-instance court had failed to rule on the payment of a court fee for the introduction of the complaint [(as provided by the Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine “On State Tax” from 1% from the cost of the claim or from 3 to 100 minimal citizen's revenue free from taxation).] The case-file was returned to the Oleksandriya Court for decision as to the payment of the State court fee that was to be adopted before 28 August 2006.
67.  The proceedings appear to be still pending before the domestic courts.
68.  On 28 June 1998 the Oleksandriya Court ordered the OM to pay the first applicant UAH 767.28[4] in salary arrears.
69.  In January 2004 the first applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Oleksandriya Bailiffs' Service seeking to find unlawful the failure to enforce the judgment given in her favour.
70.  On 27 December 2004 the Oleksandriya Court allowed the first applicant's claim and ordered the Oleksandriya Bailiffs' Service to pay her UAH 1,383[5] in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
71.  On 12 April 2005 the Court of Appeal quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.
72.  The proceedings are still pending before the first instance court.